<!DOCTYPE html>

<!--
 * Project   : Research Integrity (RI_INT)
 * Version   : 2.0.0
 * Release   : Fri Apr 24 2020 11:39:36 GMT+0100 (British Summer Time)
 * Copyright : Oxford University Press / Epigeum
-->

<html data-programme="Research Integrity" data-course="The Care and Use of Animals in Research">

	<head>
		<title>Application</title>
		<meta charset="UTF-8">
		<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge">
		<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">

		<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/project.min.css">
		<link id="basic-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print.min.css" disabled>
		<link id="summary-print" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="../css/print_interactive.min.css">
	<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/SCORM_12_APIWrapper.js"></script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="../scripts_scorm_12/courseFunctions.js"></script>
</head>

	<body onLoad="javascript:Initialize();" onUnload="javascript:Terminate();">
	  
		<div id="app" v-cloak>
			<base-container
				screen-id="hca_1_70"
				current-module = "The Care and Use of Animals in Research"
				page-title = "Application"
				screen-time = "3"
				screen-time-period = "mins">

				<page-container>

					<page-row>
						<page-content-sidebar>
							
							<!-- OPTIONAL COURSE EVALUATION START -->
							<pod variant="d" has-modal="true">
								<pod-heading>Module evaluation</pod-heading> <!-- pod title -->
								<pod-content></pod-content>
								<!-- pop-up pod content -->
								<pod-modal-heading>Module evaluation (optional)</pod-modal-heading>
								<pod-modal-content>
									<p><a href="https://www.epigeum.com/downloads/hosted_content/RI_INT/survey/ri_uk_supp_survey.html" target="_blank">Click here</a> to help develop and improve this course by providing some brief feedback (anonymously, of course). Please note that completing this survey is entirely optional. However, your input would be very welcome.</p>
								</pod-modal-content>
							</pod>
							<!-- OPTIONAL COURSE EVALUATION END -->
							
						</page-content-sidebar>

						<page-content-main>
							
							<p>Researchers who conduct research with animal subjects have the same basic responsibilities that apply to all researchers. They should:</p>
							
							<ul>
								<li>Properly plan their projects</li>
								<li>Get all approvals and permissions before undertaking any research</li>
								<li>Follow best practices for conducting, interpreting and publishing their research</li>
								<li>Be aware of and meet their responsibilities to their professional colleagues and the public.</li>
							</ul>
							
							<p>When problems arise in animal research, they often stem from a failure to meet one of these responsibilities.</p>
							
							<instructional-text><p>Consider each of the scenarios presented and the questions that accompany them before selecting what you consider to be the proper response. Read the feedback carefully before moving on to the next question.</p></instructional-text>
							<instructional-text-accessible><p>Consider each of the scenarios presented and the questions that accompany them before selecting what you consider to be the proper response. Consider the feedback carefully before moving on to the next question.</p></instructional-text-accessible>
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-wide>
							
							<!-- ACTIVITY START -->
							<process restart="true" variant="mcq" class="hide-in-mobile" show-in-accessible-version="false">
								<process-page>
									<mcq>
										<mcq-question>
											<p>You are looking for outside funding for your next research project involving animals, which is set to run over the course of three years. Unfortunately, in your field of research, three years is not a great deal of time. As a result, anything you can do to speed up your research process will help. With this thought in mind, you turn to some of your senior colleagues for advice on how to speed things up.</p>
											<p><strong>Are senior colleagues always a good source of advice when you are planning a research project?</strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>Yes</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>It is critical that you discuss your ideas with senior colleagues, and they should be a good source of advice when you are planning your research project. In practice, however, you need to carefully evaluate their advice to make sure it is responsible. Established researchers sometimes cut corners, and may credit their success to approaching things differently from their colleagues. Researchers have destroyed their careers by cutting corners and breaking rules. Getting advice is a good idea as long as you carefully weigh up the advice before making decisions. At the very least, you should discuss the ideas with animal technicians or dedicated staff (e.g. NVS, NTCO or NACWO), as well as senior colleagues.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>No</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>It is critical that you discuss your ideas with senior colleagues, and they should be a good source of advice when you are planning your research project. In practice, however, you need to carefully evaluate their advice to make sure it is responsible. Established researchers sometimes cut corners, and may credit their success to approaching things differently from their colleagues. Researchers have destroyed their careers by cutting corners and breaking rules. Getting advice is a good idea as long as you carefully weigh up the advice before making decisions. At the very least, you should discuss the ideas with animal technicians or dedicated staff (e.g. NVS, NTCO or NACWO), as well as senior colleagues.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>It depends</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>It is critical that you discuss your ideas with senior colleagues, and they should be a good source of advice when you are planning your research project. In practice, however, you need to carefully evaluate their advice to make sure it is responsible. Established researchers sometimes cut corners, and may credit their success to approaching things differently from their colleagues. Researchers have destroyed their careers by cutting corners and breaking rules. Getting advice is a good idea as long as you carefully weigh up the advice before making decisions. At the very least, you should discuss the ideas with animal technicians or dedicated staff (e.g. NVS, NTCO or NACWO), as well as senior colleagues.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>I am not certain</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>It is critical that you discuss your ideas with senior colleagues, and they should be a good source of advice when you are planning your research project. In practice, however, you need to carefully evaluate their advice to make sure it is responsible. Established researchers sometimes cut corners, and may credit their success to approaching things differently from their colleagues. Researchers have destroyed their careers by cutting corners and breaking rules. Getting advice is a good idea as long as you carefully weigh up the advice before making decisions. At the very least, you should discuss the ideas with animal technicians or dedicated staff (e.g. NVS, NTCO or NACWO), as well as senior colleagues.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options>
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<mcq>
										<mcq-question>
											<p>One experienced researcher (who has used the same animals that your research focuses on) seems to understand your concern, and offers the following tip:</p>
											<ul>
												<p><em>The work we do always takes more time than expected. Fortunately, we don't have to euthanise our animals as part of the experiment. Therefore, as I complete one project, I use a few animals to collect pilot data for the next project. This saves me the time I need to get approval. It also brings costs down, since I don't have to purchase new animals to conduct the pilot study. It's a win-win situation.</em></p>
											</ul>
											<p><strong>Should you follow this advice?</strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>Yes</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>This is not good advice. Every study, including pilot studies, must be approved by an Animal Welfare Ethical Review Board (AWERB) and (if using a protected species such as a mouse) covered by a project licence from the Home Office. During an audit, your university must be able to document that every animal in an experiment or study was purchased and approved for use in that experiment. Conducting an unauthorised animal study could jeopardise your career, and potentially even the whole animal research programme at your institution.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>No</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>This is not good advice. Every study, including pilot studies, must be approved by an Animal Welfare Ethical Review Board (AWERB) and (if using a protected species such as a mouse) covered by a project licence from the Home Office. During an audit, your university must be able to document that every animal in an experiment or study was purchased and approved for use in that experiment. Conducting an unauthorised animal study could jeopardise your career, and potentially even the whole animal research programme at your institution.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>It depends</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>This is not good advice. Every study, including pilot studies, must be approved by an Animal Welfare Ethical Review Board (AWERB) and (if using a protected species such as a mouse) covered by a project licence from the Home Office. During an audit, your university must be able to document that every animal in an experiment or study was purchased and approved for use in that experiment. Conducting an unauthorised animal study could jeopardise your career, and potentially even the whole animal research programme at your institution.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>I am not certain</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>This is not good advice. Every study, including pilot studies, must be approved by an Animal Welfare Ethical Review Board (AWERB) and (if using a protected species such as a mouse) covered by a project licence from the Home Office. During an audit, your university must be able to document that every animal in an experiment or study was purchased and approved for use in that experiment. Conducting an unauthorised animal study could jeopardise your career, and potentially even the whole animal research programme at your institution.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options>
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<mcq>
										<mcq-question>
											<p>A second colleague has another suggestion for how you could save time:</p>
											<ul>
												<p><em>I have been able to build my career by working with industry. They can be more flexible than government funders. In your line of work, you can apply for funds to study environmental or health impacts. Propose a one-year cancer study using mice. You can easily get the project done in time for promotion, and a 'no effects' finding will be welcomed. It's a win-win situation. You get the funding and results in time for promotion; and your funder gets results they'll be satisfied with.</em></p>
											</ul>
											<p><strong>Should you follow this advice?</strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>Yes</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback>
													<p>Working with industry is certainly an option for university researchers as long as the proposed project is methodologically responsible. If the proposed project will produce reliable and useful results in the time period proposed, then this could be a reasonable option for moving ahead quickly with the next phase of your research.</p>
													<p>However, if the mouse model will not produce reliable results in the proposed time period, then following this advice is not responsible. Doing so would neglect your responsibility to society and could undermine your scholarly reputation.</p>
												</mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>No</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback>
													<p>Working with industry is certainly an option for university researchers as long as the proposed project is methodologically responsible. If the proposed project will produce reliable and useful results in the time period proposed, then this could be a reasonable option for moving ahead quickly with the next phase of your research.</p>
													<p>However, if the mouse model will not produce reliable results in the proposed time period, then following this advice is not responsible. Doing so would neglect your responsibility to society and could undermine your scholarly reputation.</p>
												</mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>It depends</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback>
													<p>Working with industry is certainly an option for university researchers as long as the proposed project is methodologically responsible. If the proposed project will produce reliable and useful results in the time period proposed, then this could be a reasonable option for moving ahead quickly with the next phase of your research.</p>
													<p>However, if the mouse model will not produce reliable results in the proposed time period, then following this advice is not responsible. Doing so would neglect your responsibility to society and could undermine your scholarly reputation.</p>
												</mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>I am not certain</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback>
													<p>Working with industry is certainly an option for university researchers as long as the proposed project is methodologically responsible. If the proposed project will produce reliable and useful results in the time period proposed, then this could be a reasonable option for moving ahead quickly with the next phase of your research.</p>
													<p>However, if the mouse model will not produce reliable results in the proposed time period, then following this advice is not responsible. Doing so would neglect your responsibility to society and could undermine your scholarly reputation.</p>
												</mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options>
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
								<process-page>
									<mcq>
										<mcq-question>
											<p>A third colleague proposes an alternative approach:</p>
											<ul>
												<p><em>Projects in our field take too long because we spread out our studies over time. We run one test, check the results and then move on to the next. I can get more done in a shorter period of time by ordering more animals and trying different interventions simultaneously. Whenever I can, I also use the most extreme intervention to get results more quickly. I also use animals that are more like humans, or higher animals, whenever I can. In the end, I save time and funding, because my staff can multi-task. If my work improves patient health, I could also be saving lives. I don't understand why this approach to animal research is not universally adopted.</em></p>
											</ul>
											<p><strong>Should you follow this advice?</strong></p>
										</mcq-question>
										<mcq-options>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>Yes</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>When seen from the perspective of human benefit, this might seem like good advice.  However, the 3Rs (replace, reduce, refine) suggest that it is not. Your colleague is suggesting that human benefits outweigh all other considerations. Globally, society does not agree with this position.  Wherever possible, you should try to replace animals (for example, by using non-animal models or species lower on the phylogenetic scale), reduce the numbers you need, and refine your study to lessen the impact the experiments have on the animals you are using.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>No</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>When seen from the perspective of human benefit, this might seem like good advice.  However, the 3Rs (replace, reduce, refine) suggest that it is not. Your colleague is suggesting that human benefits outweigh all other considerations. Globally, society does not agree with this position.  Wherever possible, you should try to replace animals (for example, by using non-animal models or species lower on the phylogenetic scale), reduce the numbers you need, and refine your study to lessen the impact the experiments have on the animals you are using.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>It depends</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p> When seen from the perspective of human benefit, this might seem like good advice.  However, the 3Rs (replace, reduce, refine) suggest that it is not. Your colleague is suggesting that human benefits outweigh all other considerations. Globally, society does not agree with this position.  Wherever possible, you should try to replace animals (for example, by using non-animal models or species lower on the phylogenetic scale), reduce the numbers you need, and refine your study to lessen the impact the experiments have on the animals you are using.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
											<mcq-option neutral>
												<mcq-answer>I am not certain</mcq-answer>
												<mcq-feedback><p>When seen from the perspective of human benefit, this might seem like good advice.  However, the 3Rs (replace, reduce, refine) suggest that it is not. Your colleague is suggesting that human benefits outweigh all other considerations. Globally, society does not agree with this position.  Wherever possible, you should try to replace animals (for example, by using non-animal models or species lower on the phylogenetic scale), reduce the numbers you need, and refine your study to lessen the impact the experiments have on the animals you are using.</p></mcq-feedback>
											</mcq-option>
										</mcq-options>
									</mcq>
								</process-page>
							</process>
							<!-- MOBILE ALTERNATIVE START -->
							<div class="show-in-mobile">
								<h4>Question 1 of 4:</h4>
								<p>
									You are looking for outside funding for your next research project involving animals, which is set to run over the course of three years. Unfortunately, in your field of research, three years is not a great deal of time. As a result, anything you can do to speed up your research process will help. With this thought in mind, you turn to some of your senior colleagues for advice on how to speed things up.
								</p>
								<p>
									<strong>
										Are senior colleagues always a good source of advice when you are planning a research project?
									</strong>
								</p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Yes</li>
									<li>No</li>
									<li>It depends</li>
									<li>I am not certain</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>
									It is critical that you discuss your ideas with senior colleagues, and they should be a good source of advice when you are planning your research project. In practice, however, you need to carefully evaluate their advice to make sure it is responsible. Established researchers sometimes cut corners, and may credit their success to approaching things differently from their colleagues. Researchers have destroyed their careers by cutting corners and breaking rules. Getting advice is a good idea as long as you carefully weigh up the advice before making decisions. At the very least, you should discuss the ideas with animal technicians or dedicated staff (e.g. NVS, NTCO or NACWO), as well as senior colleagues.
								</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 2 of 4:</h4>
								<p>
									One experienced researcher (who has used the same animals that your research focuses on) seems to understand your concern, and offers the following tip:
								</p>
								<p>
									<em>
										The work we do always takes more time than expected. Fortunately, we don't have to euthanise our animals as part of the experiment. Therefore, as I complete one project, I use a few animals to collect pilot data for the next project. This saves me the time I need to get approval. It also brings costs down, since I don't have to purchase new animals to conduct the pilot study. It's a win-win situation.
									</em>
								</p>
								<p>
									<strong>
										Should you follow this advice?
									</strong>
								</p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Yes</li>
									<li>No</li>
									<li>It depends</li>
									<li>I am not certain</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>
									This is not good advice. Every study, including pilot studies, must be approved by an Animal Welfare Ethical Review Board (AWERB) and (if using a protected species such as a mouse) covered by a project licence from the Home Office. During an audit, your university must be able to document that every animal in an experiment or study was purchased and approved for use in that experiment. Conducting an unauthorised animal study could jeopardise your career, and potentially even the whole animal research programme at your institution.
								</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 3 of 4:</h4>
								<p>
									A second colleague has another suggestion for how you could save time:
								</p>
								<p>
									<em>
										I have been able to build my career by working with industry. They can be more flexible than government funders. In your line of work, you can apply for funds to study environmental or health impacts. Propose a one-year cancer study using mice. You can easily get the project done in time for promotion, and a 'no effects' finding will be welcomed. It's a win-win situation. You get the funding and results in time for promotion; and your funder gets results they'll be satisfied with.
									</em>
								</p>
								<p>
									<strong>
										Should you follow this advice?
									</strong>
								</p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Yes</li>
									<li>No</li>
									<li>It depends</li>
									<li>I am not certain</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>
									Working with industry is certainly an option for university researchers as long as the proposed project is methodologically responsible. If the proposed project will produce reliable and useful results in the time period proposed, then this could be a reasonable option for moving ahead quickly with the next phase of your research.
								</p>
								<p>
									However, if the mouse model will not produce reliable results in the proposed time period, then following this advice is not responsible. Doing so would neglect your responsibility to society and could undermine your scholarly reputation.
								</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 4 of 4:</h4>
								<p>
									A third colleague proposes an alternative approach:
								</p>
								<p>
									<em>
										Projects in our field take too long because we spread out our studies over time. We run one test, check the results and then move on to the next. I can get more done in a shorter period of time by ordering more animals and trying different interventions simultaneously. Whenever I can, I also use the most extreme intervention to get results more quickly. I also use animals that are more like humans, or higher animals, whenever I can. In the end, I save time and funding, because my staff can multi-task. If my work improves patient health, I could also be saving lives. I don't understand why this approach to animal research is not universally adopted.
									</em>
								</p>
								<p>
									<strong>
										Should you follow this advice?
									</strong>
								</p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Yes</li>
									<li>No</li>
									<li>It depends</li>
									<li>I am not certain</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>
									When seen from the perspective of human benefit, this might seem like good advice. However, the 3Rs (replace, reduce, refine) suggest that it is not. Your colleague is suggesting that human benefits outweigh all other considerations. Globally, society does not agree with this position. Wherever possible, you should try to replace animals (for example, by using non-animal models or species lower on the phylogenetic scale), reduce the numbers you need, and refine your study to lessen the impact the experiments have on the animals you are using.
								</p>
							</div>
							<!-- MOBILE ALTERNATIVE END -->
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE START -->
							<accessible-block>
								<h4>Question 1 of 4:</h4>
								<p>You are looking for outside funding for your next research project involving animals, which is set to run over the course of three years. Unfortunately, in your field of research, three years is not a great deal of time. As a result, anything you can do to speed up your research process will help. With this thought in mind, you turn to some of your senior colleagues for advice on how to speed things up.</p>
								<p><strong>Are senior colleagues always a good source of advice when you are planning a research project?</strong></p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Yes</li>
									<li>No</li>
									<li>It depends</li>
									<li>I am not certain</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>It is critical that you discuss your ideas with senior colleagues, and they should be a good source of advice when you are planning your research project. In practice, however, you need to carefully evaluate their advice to make sure it is responsible. Established researchers sometimes cut corners, and may credit their success to approaching things differently from their colleagues. Researchers have destroyed their careers by cutting corners and breaking rules. Getting advice is a good idea as long as you carefully weigh up the advice before making decisions. At the very least, you should discuss the ideas with animal technicians or dedicated staff (e.g. NVS, NTCO or NACWO), as well as senior colleagues.</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 2 of 4:</h4>
								<p>One experienced researcher (who has used the same animals that your research focuses on) seems to understand your concern, and offers the following tip:</p>
								<p><em>The work we do always takes more time than expected. Fortunately, we don't have to euthanise our animals as part of the experiment. Therefore, as I complete one project, I use a few animals to collect pilot data for the next project. This saves me the time I need to get approval. It also brings costs down, since I don't have to purchase new animals to conduct the pilot study. It's a win-win situation.</em></p>
								<p><strong>Should you follow this advice?</strong></p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Yes</li>
									<li>No</li>
									<li>It depends</li>
									<li>I am not certain</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>This is not good advice. Every study, including pilot studies, must be approved by an Animal Welfare Ethical Review Board (AWERB) and (if using a protected species such as a mouse) covered by a project licence from the Home Office. During an audit, your university must be able to document that every animal in an experiment or study was purchased and approved for use in that experiment. Conducting an unauthorised animal study could jeopardise your career, and potentially even the whole animal research programme at your institution.</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 3 of 4:</h4>
								<p>A second colleague has another suggestion for how you could save time:</p>
								<p><em>I have been able to build my career by working with industry. They can be more flexible than government funders. In your line of work, you can apply for funds to study environmental or health impacts. Propose a one-year cancer study using mice. You can easily get the project done in time for promotion, and a 'no effects' finding will be welcomed. It's a win-win situation. You get the funding and results in time for promotion; and your funder gets results they'll be satisfied with.</em></p>
								<p><strong>Should you follow this advice?</strong></p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Yes</li>
									<li>No</li>
									<li>It depends</li>
									<li>I am not certain</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>Working with industry is certainly an option for university researchers as long as the proposed project is methodologically responsible. If the proposed project will produce reliable and useful results in the time period proposed, then this could be a reasonable option for moving ahead quickly with the next phase of your research.</p>
								<p>However, if the mouse model will not produce reliable results in the proposed time period, then following this advice is not responsible. Doing so would neglect your responsibility to society and could undermine your scholarly reputation.</p>
								<hr>
								<h4>Question 4 of 4:</h4>
								<p>A third colleague proposes an alternative approach:</p>
								<p><em>Projects in our field take too long because we spread out our studies over time. We run one test, check the results and then move on to the next. I can get more done in a shorter period of time by ordering more animals and trying different interventions simultaneously. Whenever I can, I also use the most extreme intervention to get results more quickly. I also use animals that are more like humans, or higher animals, whenever I can. In the end, I save time and funding, because my staff can multi-task. If my work improves patient health, I could also be saving lives. I don't understand why this approach to animal research is not universally adopted.</em></p>
								<p><strong>Should you follow this advice?</strong></p>
								<h4>Answer options:</h4>
								<ul>
									<li>Yes</li>
									<li>No</li>
									<li>It depends</li>
									<li>I am not certain</li>
								</ul>
								<h4>Feedback:</h4>
								<p>When seen from the perspective of human benefit, this might seem like good advice.  However, the 3Rs (replace, reduce, refine) suggest that it is not. Your colleague is suggesting that human benefits outweigh all other considerations. Globally, society does not agree with this position.  Wherever possible, you should try to replace animals (for example, by using non-animal models or species lower on the phylogenetic scale), reduce the numbers you need, and refine your study to lessen the impact the experiments have on the animals you are using.</p>
							</accessible-block>
							<!-- ACCESSIBLE END -->
							<!-- ACTIVITY END -->
							
						</page-content-wide>
					</page-row>
					
					<page-row>
						<page-content-main>

							<h3>Summary</h3>
							
							<p>Unlike human participant research, the time needed to undertake a study involving animals is, for the most part, predictable. The key to success is, therefore, to draw up a reasonable plan you can follow to achieve your objectives. Ask yourself:</p>
							
							<ul>
								<li>What research questions need to be addressed?</li>
								<li>Where can I apply for funding to answer my chosen research question?</li>
								<li>What do I need to prepare before I apply?</li>
								<li>How long will it take to get a funding decision?</li>
								<li>Should I apply to more than one funder?</li>
								<li>If it is not approved in advance, how long will it take to get approval for my project once it has been funded?</li>
								<li>Do I or my staff need special training?</li>
								<li>How long will it take to procure the animals I need for my project?</li>
								<li>How long will the project take once it has started?</li>
							</ul>
							
							<p>As you draw up a plan covering your answers to these questions, you should take care to build in the time you need to meet your responsibilities &ndash; to your institution, yourself, the public and the animals you are using in your study.</p>
							
						</page-content-main>
					</page-row>
					
				</page-container>
			</base-container>
		</div> <!-- END content wrapper -->
		
		<!-- scripts -->
		<script src="../js/vendor.min.js"></script>
		<script src="../js/vue-components.min.js"></script>
		<script>
			new Vue({
			  el: "#app",
			  data: {},
			  mounted: function () {
				var core = document.createElement('script');
				core.src = "../js/core.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(core);

				var project = document.createElement('script');
				project.src = "../js/project.min.js";
				document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0].appendChild(project);
			  }
			});
		</script>

	</body>
</html>